Life is full of decisions that could literally force people to choose between life or death. In the Rattler, a man is forced to make this decision for an innocent snake. The emotions and rationale of the snake and the author are both presented. The author attempts to get the reader to empathize with him and sympathize with the snake by giving the snake a personality, narrating the story from his point of view, and creating a calm setting. The snake’s intelligence, fair treatment of the man, and gruesome death evoke sympathy from the reader. Upon seeing the man for the first time, the snake wisely “[holds] his ground in calm watchfulness”. He knows that the man could pose a threat, but he does nothing to create any unnecessary confrontation. …show more content…
However, the conflicting situation that the man is placed in, his thorough reasoning, and the necessary murder legitimize his actions and make the reader feel sorry for him for having to make such a decision. Specifically, he is forced to choose whether or not he should kill an animal that he “was not obliged to kill”. Clearly, his options are limited and the man will feel guilty regardless of the path he chooses to follow. The seriousness of the situation emphasizes that the decision is too great for the man to make, especially in his own eyes. However, since he is required to make the decision, he must thoroughly think and worry about it He then weighs the pros and cons of committing the murder, and determines that his “duty, plainly, was to kill the snake”. This decision is difficult for him to execute but is still justifiable. He knows that killing the snake is destroying part of the nature that he truly enjoys, but he must do it to protect his family and friends. He feels extremely remorseful ,but the reader understands why he’s doing what he’s doing because of his …show more content…
Everybody around him is now safe from the snake, but he was never a real danger to begin with. The man knew this from the start, despite the fact that the snake is inherently viewed as dangerous. This made the decision to kill him much more difficult to live with. In conclusion, the man’s regretful decision is so heartbreaking that the reader understands why he would go through with it despite the emotional impact it could cause. The setting is isolated, pleasant, and beautiful to contrast the ugly, emotionally packed situation that the man and the snake are placed in. The fact that the man and the snake are in a desert means that they can’t be influenced by someone in the immediate vicinity. This adds to the drama of the situation, since they are alone with their thoughts and any decision that they make is attributed solely to their conscience. This creates empathy for the man because he doesn’t have any advice and is unable to consider the direct opinions of other people. The snake, on the other hand, does not need to consider any outside opinions. The setting makes it seem like the snake is a hermit, living far away from the troubles of
In the dinner party there is a conflict that there is snake under the table but only a few people know it. The Setting takes place in India at a dinner where there is a colonial official, Mrs. Wynnes, and the American Naturalist. The American watched as a native boy quickly left the room after Mrs. wynne told him something. Mrs wynne asked for the boy to listen and she told him that there was a cobra under the table. Only the american sees the boy place a bowl of milk on the porch. In India it only means one thing bait of snakes. The american spoke and told everyone “ I will count to 300 seconds that's five minutes not one of you is to move a muscle”. Nobody moved for 280 seconds. The a cobra slithered out from under the table and goes for
Ménez, Andre’. The Subtle Beast: Snakes, from Myth to Medicine. New York, New York: CRC Press, 2003.
The effect the reader perceives in the passage of Rattler is attained from the usage of the author¡¯s imagery. The author describes the pre-action of the battle between the man and the snake as a ¡°furious signal, quite sportingly warning [the man] that [he] had made an unprovoked attack, attempted to take [the snake¡¯s] life... ¡± The warning signal is portrayed in order to reveal the significance of both the man¡¯s and the snake¡¯s value of life. The author sets an image of how one of their lives must end in order to keep the world in peace. In addition, the author describes how ¡°there was blood in [snake¡¯s] mouth and poison dripping from his fangs; it was all a nasty sight, pitiful now that it was done.¡± This bloody image of snake¡¯s impending death shows the significance of the man¡¯s acceptance toward the snake. In a sense, the reader can interpret the man¡¯s sympathy toward the snake because of the possibility that he should have let him go instead of killing him.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
a dilemma is taking place due to its content. Based on moral obligations, the action to coming to
Night Song, Grandmother’s daughter, was very young. She knew nothing about surviving. Grandmother taught Night Song all the tricks of the trade, what was best to eat, where to sleep, how to float on the alligators and how to stay safe. Grandmother Moccasin never told Night Song she could be human, but Grandmother Moccasin, as a human, had seen danger and wanted to protect her daughter from that. Grandmother knew that it was wise for Night Song to stay a snake, so that's why she kept this information from her. This protection is full proof of love.
One thing this fable demonstrates to the reader is how selfish humans are in their ways. The fable starts with the man who picks up a stone and releases a venomous snake. The snake, of course, threatens to kill the man, but the man pleas for his life because he claims he set the snake free. The man cries, "Give me one more chance. Please let us find someone else to give an opinion, so that my life may be spared" (904). The man cares nothing about how the snake has been inconvenienced. All he cares about is trying to keep the snake from killing him.
The problem in the book was that the snakes were scared that Rikki-Tikki would kill them so they tried to kill the humans so that he would leave. So that night the snakes went through the bathroom sloos to try to kill the big man. Rikki tikki attacked nag when Nagaina was gone, the big man shot
As we established, Adam and Eve, after some time, had reduced their dissonance to the point where eating the fruit was not longer an issue; they decided it was time. The snake serves to facilitate or speed up their decision and nothing else. It seduces them into doing it, but they would never have done it if they devalued the fruit. The snake simply coaxes them, assures them that they are making the correct decision.
Lawrence uses figurative language in order to present his ideas of societies expectations of a man. Lawrence changes the structure and style of “Snake” in order to highlight the struggles of the narrator. Specifically, when writing about the snake he uses repetitive and flowing words. He also uses traditional devices like alliteration, for example “and flickered his two-forked tongue from his lips.” The use of these technics gives the snake an almost human like feel that the reader can connect to. At the same time, Lawrence writes about the log used to hurt the snake in a different style creating such a contrast between the snake’s description and the log. The words describing the log are much different, “and threw it at the water trough with a clatter.” The changing styles helps emphasize the internal struggle the narrator is experiencing as he tries to figure out if he should do as society dictates and kill the snake like a man or do as he wishes and leave the snake in peace as his guest at the water
In the hot-dry deserts of India, a scary cobra is lurking around and waiting for a moment to strike. Meanwhile, a raging mongoose is ready to fight and prepared to do anything to protect his family. In the story “Rikki-Tikki Tavi” by Rudyard Kipling, a young mongoose named Rikki-Tikki was washed away by a flood into a bungalow where he was inhabited by a boy named Teddy and his parents. Rikki was determined to explore the bungalow, but Rikki got himself in trouble. He was almost killed by the snakes that he encountered in the gardens. It was Rikki’s duty to protect his entire family from the deadly snakes. Rikki-Tikki’s courage and daring personality has lead him to a lot of dangers, but his brave spirit was used to help others and solve dangerous situations.
Throughout the book, there are many examples of connections between the characters and nature. A primary example is when Fiela Komoetie thinks, “Slither like a snake, Fiela! When you want something from a white man, stoop low,” (Mathee 150) where Dalene Mathee uses snakes as a symbol for the hierarchical power. Specifically in this quote, Fiela tells herself to get low, like a snake to show respect to white males and to express how she knows her place in society. Becoming a snake and existing close
... Nature, including human beings, is `red in tooth and claw'; we are all `killers' in one way or another. Also, the fear which inhabits both human and snake (allowing us, generally, to avoid each other), and which acts as the catalyst for this poem, also precipitates retaliation. Instinct, it seems, won't be gainsaid by morality; as in war, our confrontation with Nature has its origins in some irrational `logic' of the soul. The intangibility of fear, as expressed in the imagery of the poem, is seen by the poet to spring from the same source as the snake, namely the earth - or, rather, what the earth symbolizes, our primitive past embedded in our subconsciouness. By revealing the kinship of feelings that permeates all Nature, Judith Wright universalises the experience of this poem.
David and Tessy continue running away from the battle. They realize that they are pretty far away from the inter-tribal war, so they decide to stop for a few minutes to rest. They sit down as well as drink some water from each of their canteens. While they are resting, David notices that something was moving among the trees. He gets up to go to check what it was. When he gets closer, he sees the eyes of an animal, a snake. He quickly alerts Tessy and they both grab some sticks to defend themselves. The snake crawls rapidly, opening its mouth along with taking out its long and pointy tongue, revealing that it is hungry. David starts running towards the snake also screaming ‘I´m not going to die here!’ Tessy gets surprised by David´s odd behavior,
The snake, as a notoriously evil incarnation, resembling a rainbow seems foreign. The secret lies in the rest of the armor, that it is liberally covered in gold brings home the idea of the splendor and decadence of this armor, as wonderful as might be found on a god in heaven. The idea of a king possessing the gall to flaunt this frivolous armor in a situation that calls for something more practical, goes to show the ineptitude of the king of the Acheans.